D C A

[Iframedroger R]

How does that prove your point? do tell...

[Disneyfreak1736]

How does that prove your point? do tell...

DisneySea is the measurement to what I wish DCA was. If they would of appropriately funded DCA rather than blowing it all on DTD and the hotels we wouldn't have this DCA mess.

[MagicWDI]

Islands of Adventure is also a reported $1-billion. That alone shows that the cost of a park doesn't necessarily mean a successful outcome or not.

[ismael flores]

Do we have to make every last thing into an argument? Lets keep it orderly ok.

It is my belief that it takes a lot of preparation to make a building into a pretty structure. I don't believe it is as simple as slapping a few pannels on as some make it out to be.

not disagreeing or agreeing at the diferent ideas you pointed out that would make DCA better.

But Thunder mountain has no AA's except for a few small simple animals sporadically placed and tells a story perfectly. so why would Grr need them. Grr's theming and sound effects plus its surrounding tell a story also. Besides what is the chances of seeing a bear in a real forest setting.

but the reason i quoted the above statement is to show that DCA does have the foundation to change without major infrustructure changes.

Lets take a look at TOT. Three parks are using the same basic skeleton for an attraction. Paris, DCA, and TDS.

Both DCA and Paris theming asked for a more simple yet well done mission arhitecture. both use the same building structure.

TDS == uses the EXACT same building structure and it was as easy as slapping a few themed panels and details to completely change the look and feel of the structure. The interior is also basically the exact as DCA's but the theming has been changed and reconfigured.


So what i am trying to say is that it could be as simple as some people make it out to be.

Like someone already mentioned in this thread It could be as simple as that.

[ismael flores]

Well if that is true then why didn't they bother doing anything with the entrance buildings? If it is so easy then why didn't they attempt this? Everything is as plain as what I can see down the street outside the park. Quite frankly I think the Irvine Spectrum has more theming than DCA in most areas. I'm not saying you are wrong I am asking what is the main cause of them not accomplishing this task of theming the buildings?

You are right about the layout being horrible. The park just doesn't seem to flow with its layout. For example the TOT you have to round a corner to get where you want to be and then you hit a dead end. The hub is also tiny with no memorable landmark.

Well actually the entrance although not as elaborate as Disneyland does have its theming. Some of those buildings are smaller replicas of famous landmarks in California.

I think the problem is the signage used for the stores. They detract from the architecture hidden behind it.

Another thing is the paint scheme. The paint becomes a bit more detailed as it goes above eye level. the bottom areas of the buildings lack some detailed paint schemes to better represent the architecture they did.

One of the mistake that i think were done during the placemaking of the HPB was the elimination of the whimsical look of the Muppet building. Yes they did improve the visual look of part of the queue with the added planters around the spaceship and the detailed selections of plants to make it look like they are burnt but i do not understand why they felt that the upper part of the building needed to be turned into a dull brown and red striped building. If they felt it was out of place with the backlot theming then why allow the Monsters facade to be so whimsical and out of theme to the rest of the buildings.

[ismael flores]

DisneySea is the measurement to what I wish DCA was. If they would of appropriately funded DCA rather than blowing it all on DTD and the hotels we wouldn't have this DCA mess.

Lets also not forget that the OLC has had to spend close to another 1/2 billion just to keep the parks attendance from declining.

TOT itself is reported to have cost 180million. now lets include raging spirit and all the super expensive entertainment. this could be considered to be not a wise investment for a start-up park. TDS could get to a point that its initial cost could cause be bad for the resort. from what i have heard OLC did not have intentions of spending larges amount of money on additions within the parks first five years because of its initial cost. Yet it did. TOT had to pe pushed forward into construction by several years and would have most likely opened sooner if it wasn't for the added expense and work that needed to be done to make sure that the reclaimed land it was built on was stable enough for such a heavy structure.

DCA always had TOT in its plan for a second phase and yes it was pushed ofrward but not by much. The one project that was developed and added that was not in any plan was FFF.


Lets look at disneyland Paris. Disey's most expensive resort. Stood stagnant for years. Then because of contracual agreements they had to go the low budget route to build the second gate before they lost land rights.


Hong Kong Disneyland. Started small and will shortly announce phase two construction and has started reclaiming land for a second gate.

The park reached its attendnace goals and sees a positive future.


things are not as easy as -- Lets spend billions and it will be perfect -- mentality

[Disneyfreak1736]

I don't know where you are reading that the Tokyo Disneyland Resort is not doing well but from what I read they are doing just fine.

"Tokyo DisneySea has become one of the world's most visited theme park and one of the most popular Disney Parks in the world. An estimated 12.2 million visitors visited the park in 2004."

About 5.6 million visited DCA in 04.

Even if TDS is not doing well in 06 there are many reasons involved in why that may be. Some reasons include it being an American company in a country that refuses to buy anything that is non Japanese. Another huge reason is due to the cost of overseas travel when it is by far the most expensive resort to fly to. Tourism seems to be where TDL has its strength and that seems to be dwindling since WDW and DL are much cheaper to travel to. Another huge problem is ignorance; many people have no idea that there is even a difference between the resorts so they will usually choose the least expensive.

DCA is in a whole different league of opportunities. When the park opened there was so much negativity that it scared away most of the people. Not only that but the people who decided to give DCA a shot anyway were sorely disappointed as well. I can promise you, had DCA been up to TDS standards it would be insanely popular. The fact that it is right next to the second most visited park in the world would all but guarantee its success. That would have happened if the hype had been extremely positive but in the end DCA got the hype it deserved, an insanely negative one. The image of DCA has been hurt and as all of you know once you lose people it is twice as hard to pick yourself up. To add insult to injury they keep building failures that don't help this park with its theme or quality. Make DCA TDS quality and I will be more than happy to pay full price like many others.

[1FoolishMortal]

Money doesn't equal quality. There are many things that could've been executed better with DCA given the same budget. Simply upping the amount of money invested per attraction is not going to increase its quality.

And as has been stated here, DCA's attendance has been on the rise for the past 4 years. TDS's attendance rose slightly, then dropped back down where it's stagnated for quite a while. People act like DCA is a complete failure when in reality it's been steadily improving over the years.

[Disneyfreak1736]

Money doesn't equal quality. There are many things that could've been executed better with DCA given the same budget. Simply upping the amount of money invested per attraction is not going to increase its quality.

And as has been stated here, DCA's attendance has been on the rise for the past 4 years. TDS's attendance rose slightly, then dropped back down where it's stagnated for quite a while. People act like DCA is a complete failure when in reality it's been steadily improving over the years.

Of coarse they could of used the money better but that is not to say that an increase of millions of dollars wouldn't of helped with the quality of the park and how many attractions we received. If it requires 1 billion dollars and they were supplied with 650 million of coarse corners will be cut. TOT is a great example of how we got screwed. Other TOT's are worth 140-200 million and ours is only worth 75 which is a prime example of how DCA was treated. That extra 40-100 million would of really helped TOT become something amazing and that is how I feel about DCA in a nutshell.

[1FoolishMortal]

Of coarse they could of used the money better but that is not to say that an increase of millions of dollars wouldn't of helped with the quality of the park and how many attractions we received. If it requires 1 billion dollars and they were supplied with 650 million of coarse corners will be cut. TOT is a great example of how we got screwed. Other TOT's are worth 140-200 million and ours is only worth 75 which is a prime example of how DCA was treated. That extra 40-100 million would of really helped TOT become something amazing and that is how I feel about DCA in a nutshell.

Our Tower was reported to cost between $60-90 million. WDW's Tower most likely cost $140 million because it was a prototype attraction. Prototypes tend to cost more than other ride systems, case in point being manufacturing WDW's Big Thunder then DL's version.


By the way, thank you for adding the to my "quote" in your signature. I'm glad to see my posts being modified to fit other people's viewpoints.